If you would willing to recognize enshrining Quebec's "specialness" in the Constitution ... why wouldn't you be willing to structure your political party so that it does genuinely "broker out" the deals between the language groups?

The talks are proposals about things that may be a little far from where people live. The sweaty part of politics is often things we don't want to talk about, for example. But the same people will negotiate things as solutions to practical problems.

And, of course, Conservatives forget who their base is. They think they're the smart guys from north Toronto and the Beaches. But conservativism shouldn't be just socialism for people who can count. It respects the value of institutions and culture. It shouldn't be hard to accommodate French-Canadian institutions and protect our own at the same time.

This is the real Conservative base talking to their French-speaking fellow citizens at present, just to help us all to a realistic perspective on what we have to work with.

The challenge that has always been for the Federal Government and the Constitution was what Trudeau Sr and the Federal Liberals ultimately did to get around René Lévesque to get the Canada Act Passed and the folklore surrounding the “the night of the long knives,”

To Quebec the Federal Government wasn't to be trusted.

Trying to get Quebec's signature on the Constitution ultimately sunk Mulroney, Bourassa, Campbell, Johnson and anyone associated with the PCs or the Quebec Liberals and with the Meech Lake Accord and then ultimately Charlottetown Accord.

However, the BQ is largely irrelevant and the PQ by some estimations are closer to Québec solidaire than the CAQ in some of the recent polls. Which means the anger associated with these past issues may be behind us and perhaps the time is right for both sides to get this done.

The issue here is that Philippe Couillard is a Premier who is about ten months away from potentially watching François Legault get his job, so clearly he needs an issue of traction and using the Conservatives in this manner historically has proven effective.

The idea of Quebec autonomism within Canada is not unreasonable and a party like the CAQ shares some fiscal principals with the CPC.

If Legault is elected in October and the Federal Liberals take their usual position in Quebec of doing nothing on the constitutional front, Scheer should try and make a like minded ally within Quebec quickly.

As I recall Meech, all the elites were for it. That signature was worth it. It was unveiled with great enthusiasm amongst all. You folks who admit Trump is doing some good things but can't stand his style might reflect on what Mulroney's hype must have been like. The premiers were all on-side, it was all "happy days are here again ..."

As long as nobody knew the terms. As they came out, Bob Rae and Muroney joined arms, determined to force it down the throat of Anglo-Canada and Quebec too. First it was Newfoundland. Clyde Wells won on the promise to rescind Newfoundland's support. Then the guy in New Brunswick was kicked out by another such promise. One by one, every sitting provincial government in Canada was toppled except in Alberta, where the party split and Ralph Klein took over. And promises to oppose Meech Lake were a big part of the elections that year.

And it still didn't make any difference! They still went ahead with it. Quebec was talking about knife-to-the-throat federalism, and it was our throats they were talking about. There was international concern that Canada was splitting. It did, in the end, lead to the Referendum and a narrow escape.

Meech Lake was the biggest F*** up in Canadian history. It resurrected separatism, giving it a second run. It ruined the Progressive Conservative Party and fanned the Reform Party to life. Worst of all, it cost us a decade.

The repercussions might still be being felt in the recent palace coup that was pulled off against Patrick Brown because the Reform/PC split exists (ever since Harris) within the Ontario party.

This is now the Conservative Party's baggage, particularly if they make Ms. Mulroney their leader. There may be other gains, and I have to say, I respect the fact that she has raised a big family, weathered Harvard Law and seems centred. She's the most attractive of the Mulroney's, as a person.

But, you know what? If she used her husband's name, she wouldn't even be considered.

As I recall Meech, all the elites were for it. That signature was worth it. It was unveiled with great enthusiasm amongst all. You folks who admit Trump is doing some good things but can't stand his style might reflect on what Mulroney's hype must have been like. The premiers were all on-side, it was all "happy days are here again ..."

As long as nobody knew the terms. As they came out, Bob Rae and Muroney joined arms, determined to force it down the throat of Anglo-Canada and Quebec too. First it was Newfoundland. Clyde Wells won on the promise to rescind Newfoundland's support. Then the guy in New Brunswick was kicked out by another such promise. One by one, every sitting provincial government in Canada was toppled except in Alberta, where the party split and Ralph Klein took over. And promises to oppose Meech Lake were a big part of the elections that year.

And it still didn't make any difference! They still went ahead with it. Quebec was talking about knife-to-the-throat federalism, and it was our throats they were talking about. There was international concern that Canada was splitting. It did, in the end, lead to the Referendum and a narrow escape.

Meech Lake was the biggest F*** up in Canadian history. It resurrected separatism, giving it a second run. It ruined the Progressive Conservative Party and fanned the Reform Party to life. Worst of all, it cost us a decade.

Believe me,
This is not a point that is lost on me.

My primary opposition to trying to make a deal with Quebec is that any concession Quebec gets to sign their name on the Constitution aside from "distinct society" and all things principal based on and not dollar based force a simple question from the Albertas and the Ontarios

Why not us too?

Alberta and Ontario have been (historically) the Economic Engines that made Equalization workable to give Quebec anything else always tends to play poorly elsewhere.

While I am open to the concept;

I am also mindful of the fact that maintaining popularity in Ontario, Quebec and Western Canada at the same time in the long run is a very challenging dance.

Signing the Constitution is a symbolic act, and ought not to be the results of either pressure or incentives. In my opinion ... They don't like the Constitution. Neither do I.

Don't believe the "Night of the Long Knives" myth. What happened was a group of provinces were resisting Trudeau. They were called the "group of four", or some such name styled after Chinese Communist usage. But it was Rene Leveque who broke ranks.

Does it matter?

I think we're at a point where an Anglo could go to Quebec and say, it's a time for all that to be over, and to offer to bury the past in the new Conservative Party. That leader could point out the choice -- does Quebec want to share power in a respected G-7, NATO country of 35,000,000 or does it want to be an independent nation of 5,000,000, perhaps a tax haven and tourist destination like Turk & Caicos Island -- only with skiing.

That leader ought to point to the leadership problem in Anglo-Canada Too few of us speak French well enough to compete. We want to have our best people and Quebec's best people in tandem. We offer a new deal. And lay it out.

With Bernier saying, yes, it could be true, just give me 30 seats in caucus!

The thing is -- you have to really mean it. You have to be willing to prove it.

I tend to agree that all the mistrust that spanned from the Canada Act are largely behind us.

2015 marks the first time since the signing of the Canada Act that the Liberals secured the majority of seats within Quebec (Last time was 1980). At a minimum its becoming clear that we are moving on from what was largely an open wound to the Quebecois.

I would also argue the desire for "Sovereignty" and by that I mean creating a nation separate from Canada has also largely started to move to the background.

While I do agree that signing the Constitution is symbolic, I disagree that it would be done without some sort of incentive without the Premier losing his/her job in the next election.

Rightly or Wrongly so Quebec views that signature as a bargaining chip with Ottawa otherwise it would have been by now.

They are looking for the best deal and they have something that Government, Opposition, or whomever wants. That signature and 78 Seats in the Commons.

You are arguing that the Tories should be the ones to offer the best deal;

I am not opposed to that at all,
But like with anything I want to have an idea as to what is included in that new deal for Quebec? What can we offer? What can we offer that doesn't alienate the rest of the country?

"Separatism" was a kind of blackmail whereby Quebec would win either way. And behind that, a welfare state was built. Most of us didn't know -- the cost was largely going on the credit card, and we were going to have to pay later -- or at least our children would.

But, what the hell, half the country was young, who knew or cared???

It's time to resume Canada.

What Quebec lost, and what it valued, was the 'partnership' idea. They don't want to live as a conquered people, they want to live as a partner. They want to keep their historic identity, their culture, all the stuff that gives them a sense of having a place in the world. We have to recognize that Quebec is what we are not -- a biological nation!

We are the opposite socially. We are effectively a bunch of strangers who happened to rent or buy in a certain neighbourhood. We throw the word "community" around as if there is one. There are clumps of 'community' in ethnic and religious groups and sexual-preference groups (and Newfoundland and rural Canada) but for the great mass of Anglo-Canada, the community is just the people at the mall.

For us, certain values work, but they dissolve the social relationships of kinship, and kinship relations are vitally important to "community". If you want to understand
French-speaking Quebec, you have to understand that this is one of the most stable populations on earth. So it's like a society where everyone (virtually) is a cousin. Think about that and what it means for the amount of trust in society.

Of course, as we get more metropolitan, we get less and less involved in kinship, so at some point it might become moot. But for now, think of what Quebec wants to protect, and how uncomprehending Anglo-Canada is of that.

For the country to work, it has to accept where we are. And most of us want the country to work. Would structuring the party to reflect the two nations base of our political life be so bad? Going to Quebeckers, at this time, with that promise would have a lot of appeal.

When the Liberals formed, they were rebel groups, but they were also from different religions -- at a time when social services were organized around religious institutions, everything from charity through hospitals and education.

They worked it out from a point of understanding that they had to cooperate and be respectful of each other. I think that's where it starts. Both groups have to get something out of these national deals. Everything else should be provincial. That's hard, but as a goal, it's something congenial to conservatives in general.

Secondly, the party has to have separate organizations by language. And be as democratic and open as possible. It should make a real effort at consensus on the real issues, not invoke a party catechism. And where it fails, it sets aside.

Third, there has to be a restricted democracy in the leadership selection to ensure rotating leaders with a dual leadership. The leadership probably would become, de facto, the leaders of the two factions, taking turns at who has the tie-breaking power.

And lots of social interaction at party functions. Many of them should be stimulating and fun to attend, with all the groups who come into the coalition being present. One side, multicultural as it gets, and the other, as purely homogeneous as Scandanavia ... two groups who will slowly become aware of the fact that they're probably the luckiest people in the world to have the neighbours they do.

What we are really looking for is a Federal Version of the CAQ;
A party that is fiscally conservative but values Quebec autonomism over sovereignty that is generally on the same page on most issues but willing the negotiate on the rest.

They have their own constitution, leader, policies but unlike the coalitions of the past the CPC has an upfront working understanding with them prior to the election which is public knowledge and a situation where they don't run candidates against that party.

Both parties need the other in order to govern which makes it mutually beneficial to work together.

You ask questions that I am no better at answering than anyone else. It's a vision. When people agree on a vision and trust each other, they can usually make it happen.

I am just working things out in my own mind. But a deal with an existing Quebec political organization would seem to me to be a short-cut to success.

The French-speaking side has to be free to organize itself. Both sides have to understand that at least in principle, that making this arrangement work means decentralizing the federal government and increasing the role of provincial governments. That would be a long-term, gradual commitment. The federal government, again, in principle, should confine itself to a few core functions with 'national projects' thrown into the mix as they occur.

But, listen, for individuals, the opportunity to be close to power ... just to be in the room where it happens, the room where a bit of history is made is a big incentive ... and there are careers to be made as well. Trust me, with some money, French-speaking Quebec can put together an organization in jig-time. They have their licks down.

Would Quebec go for a deal where Quebec has guaranteed participation in the national decisions, let's say holding almost a veto on national projects and patronage is part of what is 'brokered out' within the party. What are their other choices?

If you could transmit to French Canadians a recognition of what I have tried to express here, with some 'Pepsi pizazz' promotions, and follow up on it, it could secure a base in Quebec. Because. in the end, we're all a lot more alike than they like to admit.

The fundamental thing is to start the process, and probably the best way of doing that would be to form án alliance with a provincial party that is independent of Scheer's group.

I think this is the time. It seems to me that electorates go through a process of eliminating every alternative before they take the radical step they don't want to take. Quebec has done a lot to avoid voting Liberal since ADSCAM, but they have almost exhausted every alternative. This is a time for the Conservative Party of Canada to step forward.

The trouble is -- demonstrated on this board. The party is lost, in the sense that it isn't connected to the electorate, and so it has no sense of the national interest or the direction they want to go. Their voters have a better idea. But the leadership are snobs who -- kinda, sorta -- share Hillary''s opinion about the 'deplorables'.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum